Because defending civilians who Israel is targeting is, in today's world, considered antisemitic

How about we just stop socializing with Israel and its supporters while we're at it

Who the hell cares what garbage chatgpt vomited based on your unspecified chain of prompts?

I'd go one further and say all published papers should come with a clear list of "claimed truths", and one is only able to cite said paper if they are linking in to an explicit truth.

Then you can build a true hierarchy of citation dependencies, checked 'statically', and have better indications of impact if a fundamental truth is disproven, ...

Have you authored a lot of non-CS papers?

Could you provide a proof of concept paper for that sort of thing? Not a toy example, an actual example, derived from messy real-world data, in a non-trivial[1] field?

---

[1] Any field is non-trivial when you get deep enough into it.

You'll have to give some context. What did hella mean? How many months of your current spend rate do you have in the bank?

Not sure it's clear they will learn anything.... My impression was they were winning or settling these suits

But is that a reason to keep doing it? Is the penalty the only reason people hold back on doing bad stuff?

(Violation of HN Terms & Conditions || Violation of copyright) != "bad stuff"

(Violation of HN Terms & Conditions || Violation of copyright) = Potential penalty

(Violation of HN Terms & Conditions || Violation of copyright) - Potential penalty = Unsane Profits

So the equation still balances for them to not give a damn

Isn’t that basically how societies work? Different penalties, but some kind of penalties enforcing the boundaries of that society?

Not everyone agree over some things being bad

Does profit outweigh the penalty?

Agreed. I'd love to have some of whatever copium the GP is smoking... Or be half as sure about many things as they are about this insane speculation.

What do you feel you cannot share concerns with your peers?

Not the original poster but:

  * that the interaction with a peer _is_ the problem. I know we should all be grown up and able to talk about these things in a mature and effective way, but I can't cope with conflict in any shape or form, so if someone says Boo to me I cave in which doesn't get me any further

  * because peers aren't the people that need to hear some of the things I've got to say, it's layers above me that need to hear it

This is a great example of why managers have to exist.

Managers are rarely the right people to take these concerns to

They are political beasts, and unless you have some political capital with the Manager.

Long story short - if the other guy is seen by the manager as more valuable, you speaking up will get you a one way ticket to the door

Ugh, your attitude really pisses me off, but I want to help you because my liberation is bound up in yours, so here goes.

> It's layers above me that need to hear it

Most workers socialized under capitalism feel this way, that the power rests at the top of the hierarchy and IF ONLY THEY KNEW, they could FIX THINGS. Well, guess what? Your job is to keep them from knowing. You, as a leaf-node of the hierarchy, operate "the sharp end of the system" where "all ambiguity is resolved."[0] You exist to DO the WORK, and that includes the "theory building"[1] from which the owners of the business pay you to be insulated.

However you interpret that on a moral level, practically speaking it means that YOU and your peer practicioners are actually the ones with the power and the (sometimes merely implicit) mandate to enact whichever policy you think the "layers above" ought to impose.

If you REALLY need something from the higher-ups, the only real way to get it is to march on the boss and, with sufficient leverage, demand it as a collective. You're going to have to talk to your peers to organize that, or we'll slide further into thisbdystopia in which "we fear our neighbor’s opinion more than we respect our own freedom of choice."[2]

To effect lasting change, one must act with consistent commitment alongside one's peers, rather than waiting for a moment of grace from the "layers above."

"Loyalty, which asserts the continuity of past and future, binding time into a whole, is the root of human strength; there is no good to be done without it."[2]

0. How Complex Systems Fail

1. Programming as Theory Building, Naur

2. The Dispossessed, LeGuin

I’d think I generally lean towards capitalism, yet I strongly agree that talking to peers and building rapport first is a good idea before pushing for change, that theory building is an important and inescapable part of doing your work well you may not even be paid for (and that higher-ups are often not concerned with it), that you hold more power than you might realize based on your position, and that you should defend your interests.

One extreme counterpoint is all the cases where human activity is “abstracted away” (e.g., the gig economy).

Indeed even in less extreme cases, in a traditional role, sometimes you feel to be not given the knowledge that you need to be better at theory building. How does one deal with that?

> I can't cope with conflict in any shape or form

Why would you live this way?

It's just the way I am. anxiety disorder? I dunno, but conflict really stresses me

Do you think conflict is easy for everyone else or is dealing with it a skill that is developed through practice?

Ultimately, capability is a combination of training and innate capacity.

Do you think all people have the same innate capacities for all skills?

(That's not to say that training can never improve capabilities, but those with a fundamental handicap will always be disadvantaged, as with the blind, deaf, paralysed, amputees, etc. And psychological limitations.)

It is truly unfortunate for you that your actions have probably tainted your future open source contributions for a long time.

Economies of scale